2nd Batch Revised_Regulus Development Inc v Dela Cruz_Calma

CASE TITLE: REGULUS DEVELOPMENT, INC. v DELA CRUZ GR NO. AND DATE: G.R. No. 198172, January 25, 2016 DOCTRINE: Civil Procedure. Jurisdiction. RTC. - The RTC, as the court of origin, has jurisdiction to order the levy of the respondent’s real property. Execution shall be applied for in the court of origin, in accordance with Section 1, Rule 39, of the Rules of Court. FACTS: The petitioner, Regulus Development, Inc., is the owner of San Juan Apartments. Antonio dela Cruz, the respondent, leased two units of the said apartment. The contract of lease for each of the two units similarly provides a lease of one (1) month, subject to automatic renewals, unless terminated by the petitioner upon written notice. The petitioner sent the respondent a letter to terminate the lease of the two subject units. Due to the respondent’s refusal to vacate the units, the petitioner filed a complaint for ejectment before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC). The MTC resolved the case in the petitioner’s favor and ordered the respondent to vacate the premises, and pay the rentals due until the respondent actually complies. The respondent appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). RTC affirmed the decision of the MTC. Moreover, the RTC issued an Alias Writ of Execution, allowing the withdrawal of the rental deposits and the value of the supersedeas bond. The petitioner claimed that the withdrawn deposits, supersedeas bond, and payments directly made by the respondent to the petitioner, were insufficient to cover. Hence, the petitioner filed a manifestation and motion praying that the levy upon the respondent’s property covered by TCT to satisfy the judgment credit. RTC granted the petitioner’s motion. In its decision, CA reversed and set aside the decision the orders of the RTC directing the levy of the respondent’s property. It held that while the approval of the petitioner’s motion to withdraw the consigned rentals and the posted supersedeas bond was within the RTC’s jurisdiction, the RTC had no jurisdiction to levy on the respondent’s real property. It also ordered the RTC to remand the case to the MTC for execution. The petitioner challenges the CA ruling which held that the RTC had no jurisdiction to levy the respondent’s real property. The respondent, on the other hand, merely reiterated the CA’s conclusion. ISSUE: Whether the RTC had jurisdiction to levy on the respondent’s real property. HELD: Yes. The levy of the respondent’s property was made pursuant to the RTC orders issued in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, independent of the ejectment case originally filed with the MTC. An examination of the RTC order dated June 30, 2008, directing the levy of the respondent’s real property shows that it was based on the RTC order dated July 25, 2003. The levy of the respondent’s property was issued to satisfy the amounts due under the lease contracts, and not as a result of the decision in the ejectment case. The CA erred when it concluded that the RTC exercised its appellate jurisdiction in the ejectment case when it directed the levy of the respondent’s property. Furthermore, the order to levy on the respondent’s real property was consistent with the first writ of execution issued by the RTC on December 18, 2003, to implement the RTC orders. The writ of execution states that: xxx In case of [sic] sufficient personal property of the defendant cannot be found whereof to satisfy the amount of the said judgment, you are directed to levy [on] the real property of said defendant and to sell the same or so much thereof in the manner provided by law for the satisfaction of the said judgment and to make return of your proceedings together with this Writ within sixty (60) days from receipt hereof. The subsequent order of the RTC to levy on the respondent’s property was merely a reiteration and an enforcement of the original writ of execution issued.

Since the order of levy is clearly rooted on the RTC Orders, the only question that needs to be resolved is which court has jurisdiction to order the execution of the RTC orders. The RTC, as the court of origin, has jurisdiction to order the levy of the respondent’s real property. Execution shall be applied for in the court of origin, in accordance with Section 1, Rule 39, of the Rules of Court. The court of origin with respect to the assailed RTC orders is the court which issued these orders. It is the court with jurisdiction to order the execution of the issued RTC orders. Hence, the petitioner correctly moved for the issuance of the writ of execution and levy of the respondent’s real property before the RTC as the court of origin.